What if obedience isn’t just about control—but about culture?In this two-part series, we dig into the surprising history of North American dog training, guided by Justyna Wlodarczyk’s Genealogy of Obedience. From Victorian drawing rooms to modern training seminars, we uncover how obedience has reflected deeper anxieties about gender, class, race, war, and what it means to be a “good” human—or a “good” dog.In this episode, we explore the evolution of dog training in North America from the Victorian era to the early 1980s, drawing on Justyna Wlodarczyk’s Genealogy of Obedience. Far from a steady march toward kindness, dog training reflects shifting power structures, cultural anxieties, and changing ideas about utility, intelligence, and control. We trace how ideas about discipline, gender, and the state converged to shape the modern concept of obedience and the dogs who learned to perform it.Key topics* Victorian ideals of trainability and canine “sagacity”* The emergence of eugenic biopolitics in dog breeding* Konrad Most and the institutionalisation of disciplinary training* Obedience as a tool of urban regulation and wartime utility* Shifting masculinity and the gendering of training methods* Foucauldian readings of power, punishment, and “gentling”Long-read articleOverview of the bookIn Genealogy of Obedience, Justyna Wlodarczyk offers a Foucauldian analysis of North American dog training literature, tracing its evolution from the mid-19th century to the early 21st century. Rather than framing this history as a moral progression, she argues that dog training practices mirror broader power structures—shaped by race, gender, class, and shifting political rationalities. Through a close reading of manuals, philosophies, and key figures, she uncovers how obedience became entangled with biopolitics, governmentality, and the production of docile animal bodies.Victorian values: Trainability as class performanceIn the 19th century, trainability was seen not merely as a cognitive trait but as a moral and social virtue. A “trainable” dog was one who could suppress instinct in favour of self-control—a reflection of Victorian ideals of restraint, civility, and social hierarchy. Manuals framed training as a civilising act, helping dogs become more human-like without challenging the hierarchical boundary between species.This ideal was classed and racialised. Purebred dogs owned by white, middle-class individuals were seen as more inherently trainable, while dogs owned by marginalised groups were often dismissed as unmanageable. Trainability became both a behavioural and biological criterion, justifying selective breeding within a framework of eugenic biopolitics.From civilising to taming: Konrad Most and the disciplinary turnIn the early 20th century, German trainer Konrad Most redefined the purpose of training. Where Victorian approaches aimed to “elevate” dogs through benevolent guidance, Most advocated for taming—breaking the dog’s resistance and reshaping its instincts to serve human utility. His methods relied on confrontation, compulsion, and hierarchy. The ideal dog was not expressive or intelligent, but useful and obedient.Most’s philosophy shaped the institutionalisation of dog training through schools and police programmes, bringing canine education into line with Foucault’s concept of disciplinary institutions—spaces that produce docile bodies through surveillance and correction.Obedience and the state: War, regulation, and governmentalityThe interwar years and World War II cemented the dog’s role as a servant of the state. Through initiatives like “Dogs for Defense,” the US military trained thousands of dogs for wartime roles, transforming obedience into a civic and national virtue. Post-war, these methods were transferred to civilian contexts: obedience trials, training clubs, and leash laws.This era marked the rise of what Foucault called governmentality—techniques for managing populations by shaping conduct. Pet training was redefined from making a dog bite to ensuring it would not. Urban spaces required controllable, non-threatening dogs, and obedience became both a behavioural goal and a social necessity.Masculinity, violence, and controlDog training also became a site for performing masculinity. In contrast to earlier associations with gentility, 20th-century training emphasised domination and control, especially in police and military contexts. The act of “breaking” the dog became a metaphor for the human conquest of nature—reinforcing white, male authority through physical struggle.Konrad Most’s model of pack hierarchy, based on competitive dominance rather than cooperation, fed into this narrative. The human–dog relationship was framed as a perpetual contest of wills, with successful training defined as total submission. This ethos persisted in mainstream pet training long after its origins in wartime ...
